October 13, 2013

Back in May 2012, everyone was talking about that graphic depiction of the benefits of various government programs. Remember?

Barack Obama has a new composite girlfriend, and her name is Julia. Her story is told in an interactive feature titled "The Life of Julia" on the Obama campaign website. Julia, who has no face, is depicted at various ages from 3 through 67, enjoying the benefits of various Obama-backed welfare-state programs.

I have something I'd like to say about it, but I can't find it anywhere on the web. It's not at the link everyone linked to when everyone was talking about it, which was at the Obama campaign website. The campaign is over, so I guess there's no obligation to continue to host it, but this was an important historical document, and it shouldn't fall down the memory hole.

"The Life of Julia" has come to be cited — somewhat humorously — for the proposition that the government has lured women away from men, into a dependent relationship with the government, and this has had various ill effects. But I want to take a new look at why the graphic used a female character. Using a female screened out the reality that males rely on government programs too.

I'm annoyed not to be able to find the actual slideshow. (It's less annoying than the way the Obamacare website doesn't work. Is Obama ashamed of "The Life of Julia" or just unable to do internet?)

64 comments:

Funny, I'm in the middle of rereading a book called "Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage" (I'm working at summarizing it here as a form of note-taking), and the women profiled are, to a certain extent, all Julias. And their experience is significantly different than any potential Julians out there.

Get over your feminist moment. The destruction of the family is the liberal goal, the better to make government the end-all. Men resent being "taken care of", while women seem to like it, even when they are having feminist flashes every 10 minutes. The welfare state requires that women be dependent, and that men be broken. Hence the war on men and boys, and the glorification of anyone with boobs (which we are no longer allowed to notice).

Ann, you're missing the point. Yes, men _use_ some government programs, but to a much less extent than women do.

But "Julia" doesn't _use_ government; she is DEPENDENT on government. And the Obama campaign (and left-wing politics in general) _ENCOURAGE_ women to become dependent on "government" rather than themselves.

Men are dependent on government to a much smaller extent. And when they do become "dependent" on the government, it's often in partial repayment of a debt - like disabled soldiers. They may be "dependent" on government benefits, but they EARNED them.

It used a female character because the purpose was to get votes, and for the most part it is women who are attracted to the idea of benefits from government enough to vote for the guy who promises them.

Indeed, men use them, but that fact still tends to stick in their craw, despite the inroads made by metrosexualism and the hook-up culture. So when reminded of this, they don't think oh wow! Obama gave me unemployment benefits! He's my guy!. They resent being reminded of the dependency and it will not get you votes. This problem doesn't arise with women, in general.

But using a woman the ad can still appeal to men, because while they don't like to be reminded of dependency for themselves, they've no problem appreciating it for others -- particularly other women. Hey, my girlfriend benefits from that Obama dole, and that's A-OK by me (particularly since I just leave the buying of food to her and her EBT card, and then I can use my earnings for booze and detailing the truck, while talking myself into believing I'm not relying on charity).

It's a bit of a mystery why women don't recognize the incredibly corrosive effects of sustained charity that turns into an entitlement. It may be because it isn't that big a problem for them. Perhaps they just have a hard time seeing it in their men. There's a reason being a "momma's boy" is recognizable to everyone: it's not that uncommon a phenomenon, and the fact that it exists at all demonstrates that women have a blind spot that way. They often enough don't really understand how entitled dependency destroys men's souls. Yet another one of those Mars/Venus things I guess.

Maybe we should have two completely different legal rgimes, one for men (and on which only men get to vote), and one for women (and on which only women get to vote). Ha ha ha.

Well, talking about how individuals rely on government screens out discussion about how businesses of various sizes rely on government, or schools, or other groups, or even the family unit. Government wants everybody.

Anyway I think you misinterpret the criticism about "Julia." It doesn't lure women away from men, but forces men to take care of women through government.

Women feel OK about being dependent because in traditional society, a successful woman is one who has managed to convince a man to support her and her children, while a successful man is one who can afford to support one or more women and their children. Traditional charity, which placed heavy demands upon its recipients, only increased those social pressures. Tax-supported entitlement welfare, on the other hand, eliminates both the requirement that women try to find and satisfy a husband, and the requirement that men support their own children, as opposed to being forced to support other men's children. Thus, tax-supported welfare is a powerful weapon in the Left's attack on traditional society. And they are using it to good effect. The election, and worse, re-election, of BHO indicates that they may well be winning. Note that if women did not vote, Obama would have lost both elections by landslides.

thinking that a lot of things connected to Obama, (laws, campaign promises, college transcripts, etc.) once it served its purpose, it is no longer needed, and it's not wanted in case it could somehow bite someone in the behind later on.

thinking that a lot of things connected to Obama, (laws, campaign promises, college transcripts, etc.) once it served its purpose, it is no longer needed, and it's not wanted in case it could somehow bite someone in the behind later on.

Seconding Ann's thanks, Dave. It merits revisiting. Especially the way there seem to be no men in Julia's life. I mean, is little Zach a product of parthenogenesis, or of a sperm bank, or of a one-night stand, or of a boyfriend, or is Julia actually [gasp] married? We never do find out.

Ann - maybe you are correct - but this slide show seems designed to attract women. And, I think it alienates a lot of guys, esp when it is pointed out that to them to look at what the government is supplying her, and that these things were previously supplied by her husband/mate. And why indeed all the emphasis on free birth control and female health care? Guys are going to be the ones paying for such, without any of the benefits that go along with supporting women and their children. Indeed, ObamaCare is specifically designed to transfer wealth from males (who tend to use a fraction of the healthcare that females do throughout much of their lives, and esp in their 20s) with the elimination of rating and underwriting for sex.

Thanks to the valiant efforts of those above, I was able to re-view the slide show, and it looks as sexist this time as it did before.

Basically, I think they COULDN'T use men, because it would obviously strike people the wrong way. But it's acceptable to portray women this way, and it's disguising the terrible problem of far too many unproductive (if not destructive) men. No one wants to talk about them because it's in no one's interest politically, but they are being shunted aside. It may be humiliating for them, but no one wants to look at it. "Julia" helps us all accept the system that's being used to hide them.

Yeah, it totally backfired. He lost the election because of it! Oh, wait...

It'a not a stretch to assert that it put him over the top...so let's examine the message critically. I think that's what Althouse plans to do, though I doubt she can find parity for males versus female regarding social benefits of government largesse.

In short, he won by promising more to females. Many here will in fact applaud that, including yourself I presume.

But it's acceptable to portray women this way, and it's disguising the terrible problem of far too many unproductive (if not destructive) men. No one wants to talk about them because it's in no one's interest politically, but they are being shunted aside. It may be humiliating for them, but no one wants to look at it. "Julia" helps us all accept the system that's being used to hide them.

You're right, it's embarrassing to talk about men in prisons for example because there is an embarrassing racial angle to that. Better to talk instead about how the majority of them are harmless pot smokers and why not just release them?

If you are asserting that men are more unproductive because--while supporting themselves-- are wearing shorts too late into life and not entering marriages--well that's a different kettle of fish.

"Julia" helps us all accept the system that's being used to hide them.

May be "Julia" one day will marry one of these unproductive men through the kindness of her heart and be also the bread winner through the kindness of her government's heart. The roles are thus reversed (after all there are many unproductive women who depend on their husbands now) and the vision of true feminists is achieved. Patriarchy becomes matriarchy and women truly won't need a man productive or unproductive ever. Go Julia, go!

A nationwide "glitch" in the EBT system is an effective and timely way to remind millins of Julias (and Julios) that they depend on the government. That they need the government. The government provides for them.

Ordinarily I'd say that was getting deep into the conspiracy theory weeds, but given the current Machiavellian regime, I wouldn't put ANYTHING past them. A deliberate short-term EBT outage would show their "clients" which side their free bread is buttered on, and keep them on the reservation, to mix a bunch of metaphors.

The fact that the Julia add was effective is quite disturbing. This puts the men who are forced to support other men's children at an evolutionary disadvantage. Over time the population will be overrun by the children of freeloaders.

Apparently many women think taking money from productive men to raise children without fathers sired by other unproductive men is just OK. Women appear to be so self centered that they don't question the damage they are doing to the rest of the society. The effectiveness of this add raises the question about whether a democracy can survive after women are given the vote.

Julia got a raceover, paid with stimulus funds. Trying to find it, will post when I do.

As for "... a deliberate short-term EBT outage would show their "clients" which side their free bread is buttered on, and keep them on the reservation..."

You nailed that one. Just research how much recov funds the vendor receives.

It goes along with the real reason such visible, benign, "fun" things such as National Parks are shut down is they want the ignorant commoners to believe that's pretty much the extent of the entire, benevolent, Fed Govt.

somefeller, you and El Pollo Raylan may be right. Maybe it worked. I don't think that was the linchpin in the 2012 election, though, and I think and hope the "Julia" thing was a net negative for Obama, because it was so awful. But maybe I am too optimistic there.

"But it's acceptable to portray women this way, and it's disguising the terrible problem of far too many unproductive (if not destructive) men."If they showed a lazy, unproductive black man, that would be racist, right? But what is this terrible problem of unproductive men? You mean the men who don't get scholorships because they are (white) male? Or are first on the layoff or military RIF list because that way diversity numbers are improved?

I do think that the current welfare system is not good for the country, unless you define good for the country to mean good for Obama in particular, and Democrats in general. We are talking a 75% Black rate of babies born out of wedlock, with other groups moving very quickly in that direction, and some baby daddies having a dozen kids (that they don't support) by almost as many mothers, while so many Black men end up in prison or dead.

Sure, there is always going to be some of this, but I expect much less, if the women know that if they don't secure the financial benefits of a husband before having kids first, their kids are likely to starve, and maybe the women too. Instead, the poor, including those who have and raise kids primarily on government handouts, live quite well in this country - decent housing, air conditioning, flat screen (often large) TVs with 100+ cable channels, enough food to often be clinically obese! free health care, etc. What is their incentive to put up with a man, if they get all this for them and their kids just by pulling the D lever in the voting booth every couple years?

And, of course, the more women taking advantage of the government supporting them, the higher the crime rate in the community. Two things domesticate males into society. First is a strong male parental role model in the lives growing up. Second is marriage and supporting their wives and children. Both are lost to a great extent, in a nation of Julias. So, instead, we see juvenile packs of males terrorizing their local communities, gunning down their opponents with great abandon, with the women who enabled this, along with their children, as occasional collateral damage.

See, now I really have to finish reading "Promises I Can Keep" -- per Ann's comment that men aren't portrayed as Julians, the issues are very interrelated, but part of the reason for the Julias is that the men in poor (esp but not solely minority) communities are so clearly not marriage material.

Men may also draw social service benefits, but the Government uses women (and their children) to sell it to the rest of us, because society in general is more naturally protective of and sympathetic to those two types.

Apparently many women think taking money from productive men to raise children without fathers sired by other unproductive men is just OK. Women appear to be so self centered that they don't question the damage they are doing to the rest of the society.

Most Progressive women certainly seem to think this way. Or maybe "emote this way" is more accurate. Their votes prove it.

There are also benefits which are effectively restricted to single parents (=mothers); cash welfare, Medicaid (prior to and in non-Medicaid-expanding states), subsidized housing. Maybe this varies by state, but it's my understanding that "welfare kings" are generally men on Social Security disability, most often substance abusers.

And the dividing line between "welfare" and "government benefit that just happens to be means-tested" is a changing one -- is a Pell Grant welfare? Food Stamps are moving to the other side of that line, as the mentality of "avoid unless you're truly needy" is changing to "if you qualify, take advantage!" Is SSI "welfare"? What about Social Security disability benefits? (That's a lousy system -- in most European countries they have a concept of "partial disability" to encourage people to continue to work.)

My oldest brother is pretty severely handicapped. He was a mechanic who lost almost all use of his hands about 15 years ago due to an illness. That, plus severe curvature of his spine would've easily allowed him to qualify for SSI but he refused. The law says that to receive SSI, you must be incapable of performing any job. He was able to do limited work (primarily automotive diagnostics) so he never applied for SSI. When he turned 65 this year, he did apply for ordinary Social Security.

When our mother died two months ago, my sister, other brother and I offered him Mom's house. We all have homes and he was never able to afford one of his own. He moved here a week ago and is settling in. He's still looking for a job. We're trying to get him evaluated by Social Services to see if there is any help. With very little use of his hands, he can't cook for himself so we're seeing if we can get him enrolled in Meals on Wheels or food stamps.

So yes, some men do receive social services. Some even need the help for legitimate reasons.

Recapping some of the last 2 days' events. A commenter named Mark (which is my name although not me and yet I identify with him) calls Althouse "Ann" while recounting a story of how a pretty girl confided in him about another pretty girl. Althouse front pages the comment to (1) note that she prefers to be called "Althouse" not "Ann," and (2) explain that the pretty girl was really setting up Mark (not me) by playing on his male pride and vanity, and goes on about his naivete, making a point about how women manipulate men.Earlier, Althouse posted about her inability to find the Life of Julia graphic and hinted at her desire to use it to to comment on men and women. In less than an hour multiple commenters, mostly apparently men by their screen names, vie with one another to solve her problem. One links to a site. Another suggests the wayback machine, the next gives a wayback link, prompting Althouse to respond that that link didn't work. Yet another says the link worked for him. Then finally "Dave" says that he screencapped the slides and mailed them to "Ann." Althouse responds with a thanks and signs that comment, "Ann," she wrote, sweetly, and without apparent sarcasm or any lack of candor.

The Julia graphic was of course a successful attempt by a man to manipulate women to vote for him by portraying dependence as independence, although Althouse also sees it as a method to entice men towards a dependence that is hidden.

"If only there were an Althouse to analyze the manipulation of men here by Althouse to do her research, while using whatever name fit the moment," I wrote, uncertainly.

Critical theory is the underlying concept advanced in appeals to women based on public subsidy relies on critical theory analysis. That neo-Marxist doctrine informs most socialist ideology of our time with the presumption that females and members of almost any demographic other than Anglo males have inherited historic repression that can only be corrected by public-sector intervention.

The reason campaign platforms based on critical theory appeal to masses are well articulated in these comments and in other responses to the now sequestered Obama campaign cartoon about faceless Julia. Not so well articulated are the flaws in the critical theory doctrines that would have all women believe their lives are defined by being victims from birth onward of a historic, ongoing patriarchal conspiracy. When Oprah talks about waiting for those older people "marinated" in racism to die off, she doesn't refer to people who grew up in rude cultures where the N word was an acceptable descriptor or where segregation was preferred. She refers instead to those adults who haven't been indoctrinated to believe Americans of African descent are all victims owed systematic public sector compensation because they were born as victims of ongoing racism. That racism isn't segregation and the N word, but rather defines the notion that public subsidy is not a viable solution to mitigate ongoing oppression embedded in the structure of civil society.

Problem identification by way of pointing out how ads appeal to women serves to reinforce loyalty among conservative voting blocks. But to gain support from freedom-loving intellectual liberals who embrace critical theory and vote for left-wing candidates requires a critical analysis of critical theory. Citing Stalin's death toll is not enough to draw libertarian young people away from the party that is more open to potheads in the rank and file. Analysis of the historic failures of critical theory means looking at how the Great Society and 20th Century public-sector driven industrial revolution pulled descendants of slaves into rust-belt and West Coast cities where the first generation enjoyed well-paying jobs but future generations were left to fend for themselves after the immediate benefit of those military-industrial complex jobs waned and factories were closed. That is the reason for the rise of gangs in LA - post WWII aircraft factories closed when the Cold War subsidies dried up. Families who had been farmers, lured from their farms by the appeal of building bombers for Uncle Sam were left with no farm and no more bombers to build.

A frontal assault on corporate welfare along with private welfare will appeal to swing voters whose math is otherwise so deficient as to measure society in terms of 99:1.